"The South went to war on account of slavery...South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

"The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass

"We are sometimes asked in the name of patriotism to forget the merits of this fearful struggle, and to remember with equal admiration those who struck at the nation's life, and those who struck to save it-those who fought for slavery and those who fought for liberty and justice. I am no minister of malice..., I would not repel the repentant, but...

may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I forget the difference between the parties to that...bloody conflict."

Frederick Douglass, Address at the grave of the Unknown Dead, Arlington, Virginia, May 30, 1871.

"That the right of the people of a single State, to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged; and that such authority is utterly repugnant, both to the principles upon which the general government is constituted, and the objects which it was expressly formed to attain."

"This government cannot much longer play a game in which it stakes all and its enemies stake nothing. Those enemies must understand that they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the Government and if they fail, still come back into the Union unhurt."

"Pause, I entreat you, and consider for a moment what reasons you can give that will even satisfy yourselves in calmer moments--what reasons you can give to the nations of the earth to justify it? They will be calm and deliberate judges in the case; and to what cause or one overt act can you name or point, on which to rest the plea of justification? What right has the North assailed? What interest of the South has been invaded? Can either of you today name one government act of wrong, deliberately and purposely done by the government of Washington, of which the South has a right to complain? I challenge the answer!"

Extract from a speech of Alexander H. Stephens, delivered at the Secession Convention of Georgia, January, 1861.

"This step, secession, once taken, can never be recalled. We and our posterity shall see our lovely South desolated by the demon of war."

Alexander Stephens, future Vice-President of the Confederacy, January 18, 1861.

"I would sooner stay here...than have our Government acede to their demands in regard to the negro soldier...Anyone, whatever may be his color, who wears the blue of Uncle Sam is entitled to protection, even if thousands have to be sacrificed in protecting him."

James Gaunt Derrickson, Union Army Captain, prisoner of war when the Union refused a prisoner exchange unless the Confederates treated black prisoners according to the rules of war, 1864.

Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives you may win Southern independence, but I doubt it. The North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche.

swampfox wrote: So I live in the south, and I am aware of its intolerant history in many aspects, but it is hard for me to accept that the South was soley fighting to preserve slavery. I understand racism and slavery were and still are wrong, but were there not some Confederates who wanted to have an idealistic southern republic to fight the corrupt Federal government, or am I just trying to make a flawed cause seem more heroic than it is portrayed by our history books?
Swampfox:

That slavery was a cause cannot be denied, as Johan has pointed out often!

there were many many reasons why men fought. some for slavery, some for their homes,wives and girlfriends...remember, the war was fought mostly in the south, literally in the front yards of some of the soldiers. Others fought because of the adventure, or because their best friend jined up...much like young men (and now women) do today... some joioned because of conscription...were there some confederates who "wanted to have an idealistic southern republic to fight the corrupt Federal government,"... yes I am sure they were...

Was every confederate soldier a racist S.*O.*B.* who wanted to perpetuate slavery and keep the black folk in their place...no!

Are the Confederate soldiers worthy of our respect and honor for their contribution to their region, their sacrifice, their suffering and deaths for a cause THEY believed in... catagorically YES in my opinion

Are the Confederate soldiers worthy of our respect and honor for their contribution to their region, their sacrifice, their suffering and deaths for a cause THEY believed in... catagorically YES in my opinion

Very much agree, bama. Conscripts, notwithstanding, the Rebs fought better than might be expected. And, for that reason alone, each and every earned a stone or a monument and respect.

The cause for which they fought must not detract from the honor due to the men who fought.

Now, let's look at slavery from an 1861 Southern perspective. It had, over the course of American history, become an economic neccessity as the South remained agricultural. To take that away would be economic ruin to not only the South, but to the entire Union unless there were a means to "prop up" the economy while it could be figured out how to pay wages to pick the cotton without driving the price of selling the cotton to foreign nations sky high. The industrial revolution, of course, assisted in this; but who, at that time, could have forseen it?

I am over-simplifying here, and I mean no disrespect, but to free the slaves would be akin to taking away all the working farm animals. With no mule to plow for free (minus the cost of food and shelter), they'd have to pay someone to be harnessed to a plow.

What would have happened if the North allowed slavery and the South did'nt?? There still would have been a war......

If anyone one responds, I'll be in Galena, IL (Grant's birthday celebration) reenacting till Monday.....Have a GREAT weekend!!

I feel the wrath of Doc J with this one, but here goes. The worse thing to happen to the south was the assasination of Lincoln. With his loss was the loss of reconstruction of the south and gradual emancipation of the slaves. Though I don't aggree with his timetable, Lincoln believed that emancipation of the slaves would take possibly 100 years.

I wonder how people who vilify the Southern states decision to secede (from a union they no longer desired to be a part of and had every legal right to leave)feel about the near Secession of the New England states during the war of 1812. Would they have been so broad brush castigated as evil or is there an inherent regional arrogance involved in the ever present need to perpetrate the myth of the heroic North vs. the oppressive South. The root cause of the war for both sides was cold hard economics...the North couldn't afford to lose the massive amounts of duties collected from the southern states as well as their vast natural resources. And of course the south was not ready to consider parting with her peculiar institution and it's inherent benefits to her economy. I have always had a hard time buying into the "knight in shining armor to the rescue of the poor slaves" image so often adopted by many folks.
I mean seriously...the country that stole half of Mexico at gun point, not to mention perpetrated countless atrocities against the Indians in the name of manifest destiny is suddenly concerned about emancipation of millions of slaves who will then be free to compete for jobs? Sorry if I offend anyone but I just don't buy the simple party line when it comes to things of such magnitude. Lincoln had an empire to protect and he found the perfect means to do so.

CPT Crow, I disagree that the war was about simple economics. The American Civil War was a clash between agrarian and industrialized cultures. Economics (in terms of slavery) played a role, however, differing interpretations of the Constitution were at the heart of the matter. I think that very few Federal Soldiers would have seen themselves as "knights in shining armor" (as CPT Crow puts it) to rescue slaves (though there were a few), however, I do think that as the war continued many began to support destroying slavery as a policy to end the war and to punish the fire-breathers who, in their eyes, had brought on the war.

Mark- Please read Lincoln's message to the special session of Congress, July 4, 1861.This will have to do for a formal declaration of war on the part of the Federal Government. It is out there on the net. The Emancipation Proclamation, while alluded to in three Lincoln speeches of 1862, did not stand on its own documentation until January of 1863. This after the writ of Habeas Corpus abolishment, Baker Laws and Military Draft made voicing anything but party line a bit "career limiting", shall we say. I restate my assertion that the abolision of the institution of slavery, under attack since 1800 in the U.S., was a factional motive, not a motive of the general U.S. population of the time. That slavery had become a moral issue and illegal in many parts of the world by the time of secession is the single greatest cause for the failure of the Confederacy.
Sirs, though the issue be clouded by time, and the motives alien to me, I would never slander the contestants. It's been my observation that God and Country and all the laws ever written are reduced to those of your crew when it comes down to it.